A) We want to hold a vote about who the mods should be.
B) We want and need to become more independent.
C) Brooke has enough work to do.
D) The polls built into board posting are notoriously unreliable and prone to ballot stuffing.

Here's my proposed solution. Feedback would be appreciated.

We pick our nominations, do our debates however we please (more below). But when it comes to the actual voting, I think there's a way we can safely handle this that would let us do it on our own, and still have reliable results.

What we do is pick two board election commissioners. Really upstanding folks (Eggy's name came up in chat for starters. ~_^). When it comes time to vote, people cast their ballots by sending a PM with their votes to BOTH election commissioners. The commishs' wait until the voting deadline, then tally their results and compare. If there's no funkiness, they announce the winners of the election.

This system is good, I think because it ties votes to board accounts meaning it virtually eliminates ballot stuffing and there's a verifiable paper trail. This also means that if there's a funky vote, the commishs can go back and actually ask that voter i.e. no hanging chads. ~_^ Also, by PMing to two people, both commissioners have seperate copies of the votes and one can't tamper with the other's copies.

(Also, for obvious reasons, commissioners can't be candidates for mod.)

Feedback on this system would be mucho appreciated.

Other aspects I was thinking about:

Nominations: We make a thread for that, to be a nominee, two people who aren't you have to give you a nod (one to motion, one to pass) AND you have to accept the nomination. Only votes on nominees can be considered valid votes. That way, we can narrow the votes down to people who are already going to get at least a few and also not to elect anyone who doesn't want to be a mod.

Debates: Probably just start a thread to ask questions to nominees that they respond to whenever. We could also pick a time for an optional IRC debate that's only attended by those that can/feel like it.

Anyways, let's try to reach a quick, general consensus here, folks, so we can get this over with and not prolong the stress._________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

Regardless of how this turns out I still demand that me and Dood get a tech fourm to watch over.

I mean you can hang out and stuff too..

thats if Dood says it ok. I mean it's cool with me but you have to ask dood to (JK)

on a serious note

I Demand me and Dood get a tech forum to watch over. One of the things that annoys me the most is when a forum member asks for help and we all jump in with the solution and not more then that thread reaching the second page when someone else is looking for some of the same help.

or when we start talking about cool stuff you know, Big kid stuff and people think your trying to brag when your only trying to show off and stuff

or when we're talking anime I'd like to ba able to refer to that thread later on when I'm looking for something to watch and not have it be 8 pages back.

The Geeks need a home to and you can't say that it isn't related to B.S. sooo make one already.

aslo I noticed a trend. the only people who have been granted mod status so far has met Brooke in person. If thats how he gauging things I think thats pretty unfair.

Oh one last thing. I'm pretty happy with the selections for mods I wouldn't change a thing. except that YOU need to be here more, Honestly. *Pot Calling Kettle Black*

@Zero

Oh sure hide.

Last edited by Damion on Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

Regardless of how this turns out I still demand that me and Dood get a tech fourm to watch over.

I can see the reasons for a tech forum although as for anime and stuff like that goes, I wonder if a geekery forum wouldn't be kind of redundant with General since we are all geeks here ~_^? Either way, let's resolve this current crisis before starting new ones.

Damion wrote:

Oh one last thing. I'm pretty happy with the selections for mods I wouldn't change a thing. except that YOU need to be here more, Honestly. *Pot Calling Kettle Black*

To be fair, I am here most days, several times a day (probably burning a hole in the board logs. ~_^) I just usually go to visit my family Saturday and Sunday morning, and I'm just more of a reader then a poster a lot lately. Although, trying to get back into it, I've been posting in Rants again lately so I'm trying! T_T_________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

aslo I noticed a trend. the only people who have been granted mod status so far has met Brooke in person. If thats how he gauging things I think thats pretty unfair.

I don't think he's met Gups in person. And honestly I think it's pretty unfair of you to think Brooke would base his choice for mods on something like that.

Anyway, that's not what I came to post here about, back to the actual topic at hand - I like the proposed voting system, it sounds like a fair deal. And yeah, I'd trust Eggy as election commissioner. So, other people's thoughts?_________________"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

Regardless of how this turns out I still demand that me and Dood get a tech fourm to watch over.

I can see the reasons for a tech forum although as for anime and stuff like that goes, I wonder if a geekery forum wouldn't be kind of redundant with General since we are all geeks here ~_^? Either way, let's resolve this current crisis before starting new ones.

Damion wrote:

Oh one last thing. I'm pretty happy with the selections for mods I wouldn't change a thing. except that YOU need to be here more, Honestly. *Pot Calling Kettle Black*

To be fair, I am here most days, several times a day (probably burning a hole in the board logs. ~_^) I just usually go to visit my family Saturday and Sunday morning, and I'm just more of a reader then a poster a lot lately. Although, trying to get back into it, I've been posting in Rants again lately so I'm trying! T_T

1. I see your point But the IRONS hot and yes we need a geek forum. why because lots of irrelevence happens in General. I for one would love to be able to commun with Fellow board geeks without Lots of threads that happen in general to clutter everything up

Also no there are more the a few of Non-geeks in general. just ask gups her specs of her camera or Zephie what she uses to Rip DVDS or Rich what processor he prefers Just for examples. they won't know and/or care. But if and when they ever do they can go to the Geek forum and either ask or find a thread on it. It will be like a geek paradise.

aslo I noticed a trend. the only people who have been granted mod status so far has met Brooke in person. If thats how he gauging things I think thats pretty unfair.

I don't think he's met Gups in person. And honestly I think it's pretty unfair of you to think Brooke would base his choice for mods on something like that.

Anyway, that's not what I came to post here about, back to the actual topic at hand - I like the proposed voting system, it sounds like a fair deal. And yeah, I'd trust Eggy as election commissioner. So, other people's thoughts?

How is it Unfair for me to judge that when I had an "If" in there. I personally have no idea on what he is basing it on. please read the second sentance over Zeph before you think I'm being Biased.

PM me if you still have a problem with that.

[EDIT]Looks down at Zeros post below him.

Of course of course. Sorry sorry (sorry)[/EDIT]

Last edited by Damion on Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:20 pm; edited 2 times in total

Damion, if you feel strongly about a geek forum, I might suggest starting a seperate thread for it, this really isn't the place. If you like, maybe we can offer it up as an amendment come voting time. Either way, I'd really like this topic to stay on track for the time being.

Also, I must've missed the part before about the current mods all having met Brooke IRL. I wasn't aware that Gups had yet. Nonetheless, I don't feel it's important since post-election, none of us may be mods.

Anyways, thoughts on the election system from anyone?_________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

A) We want to hold a vote about who the mods should be.
B) We want and need to become more independent.
C) Brooke has enough work to do.
D) The polls built into board posting are notoriously unreliable and prone to ballot stuffing.

From Brooke's mailer:

Quote:

It's clear that our wee mental oasis has evolved well beyond the scope of Saints itself, with the potential to again become a thriving platform for ideas, expression, and emotional exchange. It's time to pass the wheel to those who can steer through choppy seas, chart a strong course, and face the long horizon undaunted.

Quote:

What we do is pick two board election commissioners. Really upstanding folks (Eggy's name came up in chat for starters. ~_^). When it comes time to vote, people cast their ballots by sending a PM with their votes to BOTH election commissioners. The commishs' wait until the voting deadline, then tally their results and compare. If there's no funkiness, they announce the winners of the election.

This is probably the best idea I've heard all day. Except, how are we going to determine who is to be a commissioner? Also, does the Commissioner lose the right to vote as well?

Quote:

This system is good, I think because it ties votes to board accounts meaning it virtually eliminates ballot stuffing and there's a verifiable paper trail.

That's a good thing.

Quote:

Nominations: We make a thread for that, to be a nominee, two people who aren't you have to give you a nod (one to motion, one to pass) AND you have to accept the nomination. Only votes on nominees can be considered valid votes. That way, we can narrow the votes down to people who are already going to get at least a few and also not to elect anyone who doesn't want to be a mod.

While I understand the rationale in this idea, I'm not so sure how well that would work. Recently, I convinced the Principal of my school (I call him King Kaardal) to allow a democratic student assembly (something like a People's Soviet ). In our discussions, we determined that nominations would be done by the person who wanted to run. It had a few advantages:

1. Person didn't have to be popular to enter the race
2. Person didn't have to have the initial support of a bunch of people
3. Encourages election on merit, rather than inherant support.

While I'm not totally against the nomination process, I tihnk there is a way we can balance the two extremes so that anyone who wants to run can, and should be able to enter as a candidate.

Quote:

Debates: Probably just start a thread to ask questions to nominees that they respond to whenever. We could also pick a time for an optional IRC debate that's only attended by those that can/feel like it.

Debates would be cool. Maybe have a thread where people could submit questions and the Commissioners or Brooke can pick a number of them to have the candidates debate on?

I'm really excited about this. The democratic process gets me fucking stoked._________________Philosophy is the art of preparing for death.

Your objections to nominations make sense. I'd just like to have proof that someone is already going to get votes so that we don't end up with 30 candidates for each board, which would water the votes down every which way so that the person who won would be the one who managed to scrape 3 votes together, instead of someone who had ten or twelve and no one is left happy with the choice.

Also, having a set of questions that the commishes' and Brooke pick that all the nominees have to answer might be worth thinking about._________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

That makes sense, most definitely. Is there any limit on the number of motions or seconds a person can make? Say, Person 1 supports both Person A and B. Person 1 moves for Person A to become a nominee. Someone seconds, and it passes. But when Person 2 moves for Person B to become a nominee, would Person 1 be allowed to second?

I hope my example and question are as clear as mud. _________________Philosophy is the art of preparing for death.

Sure, I think you could nom as many people as you like. (Just please don't nom people just to nom them, folks. And wear protection when nomming! ~_^)_________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

Sure, I think you could nom as many people as you like. (Just please don't nom people just to nom them, folks. And wear protection when nomming! ~_^)

Well that pretty much solves my main problem with the nomination process. However, do you believe it to be truly necessary to have two people involved in the process of nomination (excluding the nominee)? That just sounds like an added layer of complexity that isn't exactly necessary._________________Philosophy is the art of preparing for death.

Sag, I think we could do it with one person nomming and the other accepting, just so long as a person can't nom themselves. The extra person is just a way of making sure that more then just one person will vote for that person. If you think just having one nod will do the trick though, and cut down on Bajillion Candidate Syndrome, it'll work for me, I suppose. I'm just trying to not put anyone in a position where they feel they haveeee to nom their best friend or there friend'll hate 'em and then that friend shows up on the ballot, yada yada yada...._________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

Distribution of Mods. I really like the two for general, one for Rants, one for Storyline. That seems to me to be the best balance, probably. So, do we want to elect two for general, one for the other boards, or is there some other configuration people would prefer, like two or three mods that are on every board, or only one mod each, etc etc etc.

Keep in mind, I think we don't want to end up with five or six mods. Given the size of the board population, I think four is about the comfortable upper limit._________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

Sag, I think we could do it with one person nomming and the other accepting, just so long as a person can't nom themselves. The extra person is just a way of making sure that more then just one person will vote for that person. If you think just having one nod will do the trick though, and cut down on Bajillion Candidate Syndrome, it'll work for me, I suppose. I'm just trying to not put anyone in a position where they feel they haveeee to nom their best friend or there friend'll hate 'em and then that friend shows up on the ballot, yada yada yada....

I think the one person nomination strikes the best balance between keeping the frivolous nominations to a minimum, while at the same time allowing people not in the limelight to put their hats in the ring.

Quote:

Distribution of Mods. I really like the two for general, one for Rants, one for Storyline. That seems to me to be the best balance, probably. So, do we want to elect two for general, one for the other boards, or is there some other configuration people would prefer, like two or three mods that are on every board, or only one mod each, etc etc etc.

I'm in agreement, here. Too many mods can cause a whole host of problems, not least among them the stratification of the board social system as a whole. Which, of course, is what we are trying to prevent by holding this election in the first place._________________Philosophy is the art of preparing for death.

As for the other question of distribution, I agree with those points. I'm almost tempted to try a one person for each board system (including general) and see how that holds up overall at first, that way we have extra room for another mod as the board grows or if another forum is added. We could always elect another mod at a later date if weekend spam or something becomes completely completely overwhelming (although I think keeping the number of elections to a minimum is a good thing)._________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

Moving on then, the first part of me says let's go for a year, unless a mod is impeached, in which case there's an immediate election to replace him, while in the meantime, the remaining mods take over that forum jointly (if a mod is thrown out, it may mean something weird is going on in there, in which case co-mods may help stabalize it in the meantime).

The only issue I see with a year term is that over the summer the population of the boards could change drastically and sway the voting balance in a way we current members may not like (i.e. we're flooded with the dregs of the IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes/Something Awful/Ain't It Cool boards). Still, I think we can survive that so, one year terms are probably reasonable if people aren't comfortable with lifetime appointments._________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"

Personally, I don't have a problem with "lifetime" appointments - most forums don't usually last significant periods of time. Since that is very obviously not the case here, it would probably be best if we limited the terms of the mods somehow. The problem with this, is as you mentioned: what happens when a bunch of passerbys and trolls jump into the election and get one of their own elected to be a moderator?

Well, I think I have a solution for that. We write into the board charter/constitution that Brooke (as the admin) must give Royal Assent (in a fashion) to those elected. This allows Brooke to maintain control over the boards if a troll or whatever somehow gets elected, but because we happen to have responsible government, Brooke can't disallow someone voted in without breaking significant tradition and convention.

What do you think?_________________Philosophy is the art of preparing for death.

I don't know. That makes me a bit uneasy, but it sounds reasonable in theory. Once again, they are his boards.

Still, imagine if a troll did get elected and Brooke refused them their position. Could start a real firestorm (This doesn't take into account voting irregularities which should have the election thrown out, the offenders dealt with and a new one called.).

In the end, we're in a firestorm now, so I'm okay with this provision as long as everyone's fully aware of what that entails._________________"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas"